Constitutional duty of the Congress: to either approve or disapprove!

[jansu]

IMHO: Someone needs to be educating the Republicans and the American people about the Constitutional Duty of the Congress. The President may send our troops anywhere, but the funding for those troops and the war must be approved by the Congress. If they agree, then they give the funding. If they do not approve, then they withhold the funding and the troops come home! The President has to keep coming back and asking for the continued funding to keep the war going and at any time, the Congress may not give the funding for it.

Today, the Repubs. were chortling over Kerry's talk on why he did not vote for the funding. The Repubs were saying, "This is the issue that we will break him and the Democrats on". They were saying that he was keeping our troops from having all the equipment they needed and soldiers died because of Kerry's vote.

Either Kerry, Dean, Clark or someone needs to be out there fighting this fire NOW! Help the American people know that these Republicans are just too stupid and un-American to understand the Constitution! Our Founding Fathers set it up this way, because a President needs to be able to act fast, but they should have to justify it to the Congress, when people have had a chance to study the situation.

How we will win this November, is if every time the Republicans tell a lie or distort facts, we jump on it immediately! They have gotten away with telling lies and never having to answer for them. No more!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Thanks for making this point.

It's been bothering me as well that they haven't been saying this.

[Maat]

2. I completely agree.

Most ironically, I am studying Separation of Powers (Constitutional Law) right now for the Bar to be taken in July 2004. Does Congress remember that it is an independent body, with certain responsibilities, or has it gone brain-dead, and become a bunch of Stepford wives servicing the Bush Administration?

[sangha]

3. IMO, you're misapplying the concept of Congress' holding the purse strings

When the Constitution was first ratified, there was no standing army. Therefore, POTUS could not just order the military to take some sort of action, mainly because there was no military. In order to attack, the US first had to assemble an army, which costs money. That had to be approved by Congress, thereby giving Congress an effective veto over PTUS's orders for military action.

Today, we have a different situation. We have a standing army that Congress has authorized spending on. POTUS, as CINC of the armed forces, can order the military to engage using whatever supplies they have - supplies whose expense has already been approved by Congress.

[jansu]

4. Okay, then why did Bush have to go to Congress for the $87 Billion?

[T Roosevelt]

5. One problem with the vote characterization is this

Kerry supported an alternative that eliminated tax cuts to pay for the $87B...but the republicans couldn't have that.

[jansu]

6. I agree, that Kerry did not vote no, for all the right reasons, but for

the Repubs to continue to say that if you aren't with us you are with the terrorist, is just wrong! And, that is what they are saying with this one! And many independents and Repubs. will believe this. So, even though he voted no, not for the # 1 reason I would have wanted, he did vote no. Which was his duty!

The reason he used was also very valid. Why should the future have to pay for the present war? They may have their own wars to fight! You and I have to pay now or no play, why shouldn't the President?